Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Businesses Communications Government Network The Internet United States Technology

Republican Lawmaker Introduces Net Neutrality Legislation (variety.com) 350

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Variety: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced net neutrality legislation on Tuesday that prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content, but does not address whether ISPs can create so-called "fast lanes" of traffic for sites willing to pay for it. The legislation also would require that ISPs disclose their terms of service, and ensure that federal law preempts any state efforts to establish rules of the road for internet traffic. "A lot of our innovators are saying, 'Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later,'" Blackburn told Variety. She said that she was "very hopeful" about the prospects for the legislation because "an open internet and preserving that open internet is what people want to see happen. Let's preserve it. Let's nail it down. Let's stop the ping-ponging from one FCC commission to another. This is something where the Congress should act." Blackburn chairs a House subcommittee on communications and technology.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Republican Lawmaker Introduces Net Neutrality Legislation

Comments Filter:
  • by thaylin ( 555395 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:04AM (#55774911)

    They will keep the preemption rules and gut the rest making it so there is no NN

    • The biggest issues that the GOP had with Net Neutrality is it goes against their idea of having government control over business.
      However we are starting to see what I expected to see. 1 simple to follow rule being overturned being replaced with many complicated rules.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pots ( 5047349 )
      They don't need to change anything, allowing fast lanes is enough to kill it. This law is scarier than what the FCC did - the GOP seems to be backpedaling on their anti-net neutrality stance lately. Rather than trying to paint neutrality as bad, they're trying to pivot into something like, "We just didn't like how it was being implemented." If they can successfully frame it in that context, and pass a law like this one which kills net neutrality while claiming to protect it, then enough people may believe t
    • by MangoCats ( 2757129 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @10:57AM (#55776005)

      I'm missing the distinction between throttling and fast-lanes?

      Will there be a guaranteed minimum bandwidth? If not, then anyone not in the fast-lanes is effectively being throttled.

  • The right way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:09AM (#55774931)

    Passing a law is the right way to do it. This way we'll have a stable requirement and not some 'regulation' that can be changed at the whim of any given administration. We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities, we simply need the right neutrality laws. If this happens, we'll all be in a better place.

    • Re:The right way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zifn4b ( 1040588 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:34AM (#55775057)

      We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities

      I disagree. The internet is a critical part of the backbone of our consumption-based economy. If there are not safe guards in place for the internet as a public utility to protect the market then we are at risk of damaging the entire economic market (possibly causing yet another recession) in order to provide special treatment to a small amount of participants namely Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner.

      This IS a public concern over the general welfare for all people and all businesses the same as clean drinking water and electricity is. It must be protected to provide for the general welfare of everyone not just a few special interests.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dehachel12 ( 4766411 )
        > clean drinking water
        Some people disagree on this. Usually people with a lot of money.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Hal_Porter ( 817932 )

          clean drinking water

          Some people disagree on this. Usually people with a lot of money.

          A lot of countries have a right to a lot stuff - food, water, a job etc in theory but in practice they get nothing. E.g. the USSR, North Korea etc.

          Meanwhile there are lot of countries which have few rights to those things but in practice people tend not to die of of thirst of famine.

          Basically countries which only grant negative rights (freedom from X) tend to outperform ones that grant extensive positive rights (right to X) for for negative and positive rights.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • The internet is a critical part of the backbone of our consumption-based economy.

        Wait. So your argument for NN is that people must have guaranteed snappy access to the site of their choice so we make sure they don't lose the ability to... buy stuff online at a frenzied pace?

        Wow. Power to the people, d00d.

      • Re:The right way (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:52AM (#55775479)
        "The Internet" does not need to be regulated as a utility. Heck, "the Internet" shouldn't be regulated at all. None of the reasons you give justify making Internet service a utility. In fact, contrary to your rationale, the reason that there are so few participants is entirely the fault of local governments awarding local monopolies to a select few companies.

        The cable carrying information into your house should be regulated as a utility. This covers cable TV, phone service, Internet service. It should be regulated not because of the Internet or TV channels or phone services. It should be regulated because the lines for these services have to pass through public easements [wikipedia.org], and it's in The Public's best interest to have as few physical lines as possible on telephone poles, in underground easements, and leading up to their home. The optimal solution to this problem is a single line leading to each home which carries all these services.

        As such the contract to install and maintain this line should be awarded to a single company, which due to its monopolistic nature should be regulated as a utility and prohibited from providing service over the line. Companies wishing to provide service, be it Internet, TV channels, phone service, alarm monitoring, or whatever future information transmission application (holovision, smellovision, whatever), should all be allowed to transmit that information over that line for a fixed, regulated fee, but the company maintaining the line is prohibited from providing any of these services so there is no conflict of interest. This is how we do electric, gas, and long distance phone service. One company maintains all the lines and pipes in an area, but you can buy your electricity, gas, and long distance phone service from hundreds if not thousands of different suppliers.

        The fact that (1) there will be a monopoly contract to maintain the line to each home, and (2) that line will pass through public easements is enough to justify regulating it as a utility.
      • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

        If there are not safe guards in place for the internet as a public utility to protect the market then we are at risk of damaging the entire economic market (possibly causing yet another recession) in order to provide special treatment to a small amount of participants namely Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner.

        The problem is that traditional utilities are pretty much stable. Water distributions systems haven't changed significantly in 80 years. Ditto the electrical system. The internet changes rapidly. Delivery systems change. Services change. Protocols change. The only thing that is significantly similar is TCP/IP, BGP and DNS.

        So how do you regulate that without killing off any potential improvements that run afoul of said regulation?

        You leave it alone until something is obviously broken, then you pass a law to

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        This IS a public concern over the general welfare for all people and all businesses the same as clean drinking water and electricity is. It must be protected to provide for the general welfare of everyone not just a few special interests.

        The only part of the internet that should be regulated as a utility is the "last mile" or "the pole to your home." Anything else is generally overkill, and the market can handle the rest if competition is healthy. Ask yourself this, if tomorrow comcast, AT&T, and so on could no longer hold local monopolies because the "pole to home" is classed as a utility and you can get access from *any* ISP, how much do you think things would change as companies tried to position themselves better?

        Right, you can al

      • Re:The right way (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MangoCats ( 2757129 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @11:05AM (#55776091)

        ISPs are the new interstate highway system. I don't think the progress in commerce since Eisenhower was attributable to the toll roads that are a part of our highway system, it was the free access high speed long distance arteries.

      • The internet is a critical part of the backbone of our consumption-based economy.

        This can change. That change starts with our leaders - declaring with action if not words - that affordable broadband access is not a human right, nor necessary. Objectively, it's arguable. Sometimes I take an online class, but facilities are available for doing that without broadband, and schools can adjust their instructional material to compensate for ever narrower bandwidth. As for everything else, chatting, reading, online shopping, bills, you don't really need much speed for that. While I sympathize,

    • by pots ( 5047349 )
      The point of the law which put the FCC in charge of identifying and enforcing common carrier status was to ensure that the law would stay current even as technology changed. Our current situation is not a regulatory failure: The current FCC has not failed in this task, they are applying the law in exactly way that congress wants them to (i.e.: they are killing net neutrality, because congress wants them to. Pai has always been clear about his stance on net neutrality, well before he was nominated by the pre
      • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

        The only thing that can solve this problem is ensuring that the people in congress are not horrible. That's it. That's the only thing.

        Unfortunately, I think you've replaced a difficult problem with an impossible one. It's probably easier to fix NN now and pass another bill later than it is to fix congress. Among other things:

        - Congress starts with a very small pool of self-selected applicants, so you're picking from at best a dozen volunteers.
        - Applicants who want any chance of winning have to be affiliated with things that bring them money or visibility, so they're already aligned with some kind of big money.
        - It's a mostly two-party sys

      • The only thing that can solve this problem is ensuring that the people in congress are not horrible.

        That is by far the weakest argument that makes assumptions that are provably false. I've proposed (many times on /.) a much better fix, by removing the previous government regulations that caused this in the first place, namely franchise agreements.

        If Local municipalities treated last mile like infrastructure and allowed any number of service providers access to the last mile customer, it would solve this problem (and other problems we don't even know we have) without having to control the idiots in both th

    • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      "We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities"

      Unless there is a fair competitive marketplace you do need regulation. Currently, you can't start a business and run fiber to peoples homes. The only competition is satellite, which most don't find acceptable due to latency, and 4G, which doesn't cut it. More than 50 million homes have only a single broadband provider available. So these are local monopolies w/o competition. They are virtual utilities and need to be regulated as such.

      • Unless there is a fair competitive marketplace you do need regulation.

        You are correct, 100%.

        But my question is, why is the natural choice regulation and not making the marketplace fair and competitive?

        Keep in mind government regulation caused this problem in the first place, and you're betting the solution is more of the same thinking that caused this .

        https://alliswel.us/image/1722... [alliswel.us]

        • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          I'd be fine with making them fair and competitive if you can find a way for them to not need to all run wires through my front lawn. It already gets painted every time someone down the street needs work or digs a hole...gas, water, cable and phone companies, seems like my lawn is every color but green.

    • Being how the internet has embedded itself as a critical infrastructure for our personal lives and our economy. It is important that ISP are properly regulated so they realize the importance they carry.
      Imagine a Power Utility cutting power or browning out a Solar Cell manufacture, or a community who is against how they generate power. That is why Utilities have a lot of regulation. Because they are vital to the community, and we can't allow such companies to just do anything they want like other businesse

    • Getting the regulations out of the hands of the Executive Branch's appointees and into the muck of the Legislature and Supreme Court will go a long way to stabilizing the playing field.

      The internet has been "a big deal" for 20 years, I think we should be able to craft some sensible legislation about it by now.

    • Passing a law is the right way to do it. This way we'll have a stable requirement and not some 'regulation' that can be changed at the whim of any given administration. We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities, we simply need the right neutrality laws. If this happens, we'll all be in a better place.

      Regulations can't be "changed at [a] whim". There's a well-defined process that an agency must follow before changing existing regulations (this has been in the news a few times this year, when agencies tried reversing policies from the previous administration without following the process defined by Congress).

      It's not even a completely unreasonable argument to say that it's easier for Congress to repeal a law than it is for an executive agency to change a regulation.

  • It'll never pass. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:16AM (#55774961)

    Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later is too rational, and Democrats will block it because it was introduced by a Republican.

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later is too rational, and Democrats will block it because it was introduced by a Republican.

      Negative. The problem here is that when two sides of a negotiating table have such radically different points of view, the set of things that are mutually agreed upon can be very small if anything at all. Drafting up an agreement based on those points alone can have disastrous ripple effects. In this case, the stakes are very high because the outcome of this issue will affect every American citizen and that is something that is not to be taken lightly. The problem, as is typical in many negotiating situ

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, the democrats will block it because it's a carefully tailored smokescreen. Look who is introducing this bill and her history in regards to the internet and ISPs.

      It supposedly outlaws throttling and blocking, but allows for "fast lanes". That isn't net neutrality.

  • Our ISP's best buddy (Score:5, Informative)

    by sasparillascott ( 1267058 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:19AM (#55774977)
    This lady introduced the bill in the Senate that blew away the Internet privacy protections from our ISP's (so they couldn't monitor, catalog and monetize what you do on the internet) - which was the 1st thing the Trump Admin did after getting into office. I believe her state is the home of some big ISP. I.E. this is something the big ISP's want.

    The process was, the FCC (led by former Verizon corporate lawyer Ajit Pai) throws away the Net Neutrality - causing fear and some panic. Marsha and the other lobbied Republican members of congress ride to the rescue with new "Net Neutrality" legislation - which is anything but. And gets us maybe a little ways back towards Net Neutrality, but outlaws states doing their own Net Neutrality etc. (biggest threats to this huge new profit center for Comcast), they declare victory and we're screwed.

    This needs to be blocked and let the FCC's recent changes get slapped down in court.
    • Why would the FCC rollback of FCC regulations be 'slapped down' in court?

      The Net Neutrality regulations implemented less than 2 years ago were done outside of the legislative branch, the regulations did not originate in Congress and were not signed into law by the President.

      • LMOL go study how government works moron. Laws passed by Congress need to be operationally defined by the different government agencies. They are not step by step instructions. Also, the different government agencies have authority granted to them by law. What often happens, is when a government agencies enacts a rule, certain groups raise objections and it goes to the courts to decide if these rules are lawful.

        That's how government works.

        Also, you cannot unilaterally undue rules. There would ne
        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          Also, you cannot unilaterally undue rules. There would need to be justification for the change. As yet, the FCC has yet to present evidence for the change.

          You absolutely can unilaterally undue rules and regulations. You absolutely cannot undue laws. You understand so little how governments are actually supposed to function is scary. The entire point you're trying to present is fiat by executive order AKA how a dictatorship/junta/non-democracy works.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:29AM (#55775019)

    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Tennessee-Rep-Marsha-Blackburn-Unveils-Fake-Net-Neutrality-Law-140921 [dslreports.com]

    Enter Marsha Blackburn, who for years has rubber stamped every whim of sector giants like AT&T and Comcast.

    Blackburn has consistently fought against net neutrality. She has also vigorously defended protectionist state laws, written by companies like AT&T and Verizon, that restrict towns and cities from building their own broadband infrastructure (or in some cases striking public/private partnerships). Even in locations these incumbent ISPs refuse to serve (such as her home state of Tennessee, one of the least connected states in the nation). Such laws have one function: protecting incumbent ISP revenues from consumers tired of entrenched duopolies.

    Yet now she insists her Open Internet Preservation Act (pdf) will help protect the open internet, despite the fact it blatantly ignores all manner of potential violations, from zero rating and interconnection to paid prioritization deals. The bill also attempts to pre-empt state efforts to protect net neutrality, since again, the real goal is to prevent tougher rules -- not protect consumers.

  • by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:39AM (#55775077)

    Someone please define what they are thinking. How can you not throttle and yet have fast lanes?

    I'm thinking this is just double speak and is sponsored by the broadband companies in order to block state legislation.

    I'm not against certain efforts to add priority levels to internet traffic like specifically for playing games but it would have to be paid by customers to the ISP's.

      • Throttling is when you have the bandwidth, but you artificially withhold it from a particular service. If there's plenty of LTE bandwidth to stream Hulu, but AT&T degrades Hulu service to try to make their DirecTV Now service appear better, that is throttling.
      • Fast lanes prioritize one type of traffic over another. If AT&T prioritizes their DirecTV Now service, then Hulu will work fine over LTE, up until so many people in a cell are using LTE that more bandwidth is being demanded than the tower c
  • prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content, but does not address whether ISPs can create so-called "fast lanes" of traffic for sites willing to pay for it.

    If you can't throttle, how do you give priority to the fast lane? It's addressed.

    • by Hodr ( 219920 )

      That depends on if you see a qualitative difference between slowing down traffic from a specific source, like Netflix servers or giving priority (which is only ever "faster" over saturated links) to specific sources to the slight detriment of all other non-prioritized traffic.

      One of those will always be to the measurable detriment of the target, the other has no target and should have minimal detriment to any particular entity.

      And if it gets to the point where the network is always saturated (I.E. everythin

      • to the slight detriment of all other non-prioritized traffic.

        Even a slight detriment is still a throttle. There is no slippery slope - it's all or nothing. If even one thing is reduced in speed a tiny amount to make way for a paid priority, then you are throttling.

  • Don't trust her... (Score:5, Informative)

    by The-Forge ( 84105 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @08:47AM (#55775127)

    Don't trust Blackburn. It's already leaking out that Comcast's lawyers are the ones writing this legislation. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvw8k5/comcast-fcc-net-neutrality-law

    • Yah, this is the author of the "Internet 'Freedom' Act" (quoting intentional) and opponent of municipal broadband. She has stood against attempts to enforce any level of privacy requirements on ISP's. She is the Ajit Pai of the Senate. Speaking of which.... Fuck Ajit Pai. And fuck Marsha Blackburn too.

  • Oh, GOP... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Somebody Is Using My ( 985418 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:06AM (#55775217) Homepage

    The Republican party is in a bad place. After a disastrous year, they are desperate for a win... any win. It's why they are pushing so strongly for the tax bill, even though many of them recognize how terribly flawed it is - not only from an social and economic perspective, but also from a political one: the tax plan will cost them votes. But, they fear, not having passed any significant legislation will cost them more. So we get the this tax plan.

    And yet, here we have a perfect opportunity for them to pass some major legislation that would not only be incredibly popular (some 70% of the country support Net Neutrality) but would be fairly easy to get through Congress. It has support on both sides of the aisle. It wouldn't even require much work: just enshrine the already-written pre-Ajit Pai rules as law. It is quite possible that they could have gotten this law passed in mere days.

    The Republican party would have been seen as working for the people, standing up against huge telecoms, and able to work and lead the country as a whole rather than satisfying a small base. It would have been a home-run, a Christmas Miracle. It would have been that desperately needed success the GOP has been selling its soul for.

    And then they go and do this.

    Oh, GOP.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JackieBrown ( 987087 )

      It doesn't matter what they do. People like you will see any bill by the Rs as a sell out to ISPs no matter what is in the bill. And even if they did somehow make a bill that totally destroyed the ISPs, you'd write it off as self serving and an obvious attempt to buy votes. (I've seen that on here already for stuff that Trump has pushed forward that we agreed with. Post after post saying not to trust it. Or that it must benefit him in some way we can't see. )

      • Actually, I think the point of my post was that the Republicans could have gotten an easy win - that people on both sides of the aisle would have supported them - if they had simply reversed the recent FCC rulings back to where we were at the end of 2016.

        Would it have been self-serving? Yes, in the sense that politicians need to win the favor of voters. Would I have been thrilled it was a Republican bill? No, because the GOP would use this victory as proof they had the mandate of the people and probably wou

  • They'll end up introducing the same regulations Obama put in with a different name. Go GOP.

  • In order to implement "fast lanes", an ISP must throttle non-"fast lane" packets, which is a negation of net neutrality.

    Moreover, how would a "fast lane" be defined? If the "fast lane" is defined by the kind of traffic, then the ISP would have to inspect its customers' packets in order to determine the application-level exchange that they are part of, and this again would violate net neutrality (and the customers' privacy, but we already know that that battle is lost). And more importantly, such inspectio

    • In order to implement "fast lanes", an ISP must throttle non-"fast lane" packets, which is a negation of net neutrality.

      Comcast sells you 20Mbit, 50Mbit, or a 200Mbit connection. Then they have that Boost thing, so you start downloading a file and grab the first 100MB at like 500Mbit/s.

      I imagine it'd be like that: you never get less than your baseline service, and they can't throttle a particular service (netflix, google, etc.) below your baseline service. 200Mbit means you get 200Mbit to Google, to Netflix, to Spotify, to everything; getting more doesn't violate your contract.

      Of course, I imagine things being done i

  • She voted with all her GOP colleagues on the deeply unpopular tax bill, and now she's trying to show that she cares about her constituents - rather than just her owners. We'll see if this is enough to keep her in her seat come November.
    • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      The last time Tenn voted more than 50% for a D president was in 76 when Gerald Ford was hated for pardoning Nixon.

      • That's irrelevant. When average Americans start to realize how disgustingly expensive this new tax plan is going to be for them, the GOP will be struggling to distance themselves from it quickly enough to not lose their jobs in the November 2018 elections. While the GOP was clever enough to time this bill so that most people won't have filed their taxes under it before the 2018 elections, enough people will have read the worst parts of it by then that it will be exposed for how terrible it is and how much
        • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          "That's irrelevant."

          If you believe that, then you're uninformed or a flat out moron.

          "When average Americans start to realize how disgustingly expensive this new tax plan is going to be for them,..."

          We'll all see how things pan out over the next year as this tax plan is implemented. Vote with your wallet.

          • "That's irrelevant."

            If you believe that, then you're uninformed or a flat out moron.

            You have not made an argument for the record of how Tennessee voters vote for the president as being somehow significant to the upcoming midterm election. Calling me names does not help your case.

            "When average Americans start to realize how disgustingly expensive this new tax plan is going to be for them,..."

            We'll all see how things pan out over the next year as this tax plan is implemented. Vote with your wallet.

            Many Americans will find they actually take home less once they have paid their taxes under this plan. Pay more, get less - not usually a popular platform. This is likely why the GOP waited so long to introduce their terrible tax bill, so that the worst parts won't kick in until after the 2018 midterms are ove

  • by banbeans ( 122547 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:48AM (#55775457)

    Even with the fcc rules fast lanes existed.
    Google paid for fiber directly into the larger isps backbones. The bought dark fiber than pay to have it terminated at the isps major and some not so major pops.
    Netflix paid to have cache boxes installed and fiber directly to comcast.
    Many of the acceleration and distribution networks pay for cache boxes and have direct fiber connections to all the large pops of even the midsize isp networks.
    The FCC ruling did not change that at all.

  • by laurencetux ( 841046 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @10:00AM (#55775525)

    1 whenever there is not a signed SLA in effect and as a minimum an ISP must provide not less than 75% of advertised speed/bandwidth 90% of the time or better (so if you advertise up to 20MPS speed 90% of the time all of your users should have not less than 15MPS available all the way to the next peer)

    2 any bandwidth shaping or service restrictions must be part of a signed and notarized contract (copies to be on file in the local office and original STAMPED copy to be on file at the corporate office).

    3 any ISP that owns directly or indirectly any content service may only promote said content as part of a "bonus"
    where any future charges for said service must require an affirmative action on the part of the client to begin (any free %service% package must automatically cancel at the end of the promo period unless the client performs a clear action like checking a box on a physical bill or checking a box in an electronically presented bill)

  • I'd much rather see the focus be on:

    - cracking down on ISPs that use anti-competitive behavior
    - ensuring that advertised speeds are generally achievable
    - forcing providers to be clear and up front about any blocking, throttling, etc. that they do

    If somebody wants to provide fast lines or blocking or whatever, then I don't see how it's the government's place to try to force things one way or the other - those are things that some consumers actually want in certain scenarios. Those things aren't inherently go

  • by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @11:25AM (#55776319)

    There is only one single thing needed in the law, proposal, act or regulation that is absolutely necessary, you can write it down, and only accept when it’s included there: Internet Service Providers are forbidden by law from discriminating types of data that goes through their services. Period.

    It is this simple. Nothing open to interpretation, no double speak, no pretense.

    If this is not explicitly there in the proposal, it’s bullshit. In this particular case it’s at best fluff... everything she is proposing there is already guaranteed. At worst, it could be opening an opportunity for anyone to block or reduce access to whatever they consider unlawful content, unlawful Internet traffic and “harmful devices”... it’s broad and clearly has some second intentions embedded there.

    By the way, get ready people... you can bet that with the corporation friendly environment that this administration has created, SOPA will come back full force. This bullshit Open Internet Preservation Act might be the start of it.

  • How about instead of allowing telecoms to make business arrangements to speed up or slow down communications, let the FCC establish minimum standards of bandwidth and latency as well as minimum standards of interconnectivity with other networks based on averages of network traffic generated by users. And regulating peering technicalities should also represent the public interest in maintaining a reliable communication network.

    And then give the telecoms options to provide so called "fast lanes" or faster se

  • Isn't that the came as co-location or even a content distribution network?

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Working...